F/A-18F Super Hornet Recon vs SA-13 "Gopher" 9K35 Strela-10 SAM in Hollywood-Style or rather MACROSS-Style Enjoy an don't take it seriously, it's just entertainment :P Take two
It's like when Terminator from the future needed to buy a power supply at present time. Terminator enters a store: - "I need a new power supply." - "Sure sir, which type of power supply do you need?" - "Any nuclear will do."
Not taking seriously but: 1. 0:13 You don't joke about things like that. Pilots know EXACTLY what they are doing. "You sure about that?" Nah, just trying out my military grid system on the fly! -_- 2. You are using the F/A-18 for reconnaissance purpose. WHY would you fly so low? All reconnaissance purpose hardware are built for high altitude surveillance. Why would you fly over enemy territory at such low altitude? 3. If the SAM is looking for target, it would emit radar, and THAT would show up on RWS (Radar Warning Receiver) on the F/A-18. 4. SAM at THAT close range? Good luck dodging that. 5. Assuming that they CAN dodge the SAM, here are couple of facts that are missing: - WHY are they using so low number of flares when they should have plenty more? - Maneuver such as going high and pulling down.. in linear fashion is NOT the way to defeat a SAM. - If it is a heat seeker, then the RWR would probably not indicate SAM since the system can't detect heat signature instead of radio wave - If it is a radar guided, then RWR would detect it (as shown on the RWR (or radar screen) as two targets. HOWEVER, that would mean they are not heat seekers, hence deploying flares would be pointless. They would have to deploy chaff with RADAR jammer being active for effective counter against the missile. - If it is semi-active radar, I don't think it would even use heat seeker to get a pitbull. To get a pitbull, the missile itself would also use radar in close proximity to the aircraft. This method is used for AAMRAM typically. So no point in using it in such a close encounter. Nor do I think the missile is semi active. *** Dropping fuel pod to lure heat seeker away? WTF! 6. KEY NOTE: MISSILE DO NOT CHASE A TARGET. THEY INTERCEPT a predetermined, predictable trajectory where the plane "would be" after a given amount of time. 7. Even if they could CHASE, the amount of time they chase for being such small missile, their fuel would run out. 8. Once a missile miss you, there is NO WAY it will come back to attack you. And there's more. The list goes on. As the video uploader said, enjoy it as it is, but if you are an avid military hardware geek, this would ruin your day. In that case, laugh it off like it was a joke.
+M1TGLIED Ah! I see. However that is still not enough to justify the other facts. I mean the entire scene is for those who want to feel "the need for speed and explosion." It's wrong in so many ways...
@@AbDeRRaHiMX the rest dont tho, and as much as I love it the chernobog is a pain in the ass to get set up, press h, go round and hope you get in the right seat before you get blown up
@@untrust2033 never use chernobog in a fight if you are visible on radar, activate ghost organization and put it somewhere open so no barrier will stop ur lock on, as soon as you fire at a jet its trapped and cannot attack you unless its very close, as the missiles would hit it as soon as it stop going in circles, and even in circles it will still get hit after sometime, and i mean all jets even pyro, mk2 has 0 chance, also if u get lucky and become beast in that event, dont waste the chance get a chernobog and take out ur enemies
Surface to air missiles don't slam into the aircraft. They have proximity fuses that cause the missile to explode next to the aircraft, releasing shrapnel.
killajakez as you said they EXPLODE, the misile in this scene dont explode it just burst slugs like a shotgun in one direction, a misile explode realising material in all directions, also misiles doesnt have that much fuel and they usually fly faster than an aircraft and the good ones turns closer
A lot of SAM's are like that. F4 pilots in Vietnam described them as Telephone pole sized shotguns. But yes, It was a little unrealistic with how long it tracked and took to hit ect. In reality if the missile misses the first time, it's pretty much done.
the sad thing is that this is even "good" i saw once a american prop plane doing a cobra breaking all physic rules for killing a bf109. like inerthia suddently drops to 0 and the gravity goes between moon and jupiter in 10 seconds my heart skipped a beat that time
Virtually all anti-air missiles, whether fired by ground installation or by another aircraft, use annular blast fragmentation to destroy or damage their target. This is a more consistent and reliable way of hitting the target rather than relying on the missile making direct physical contact. The missile's warhead is ringed with metal rods that do the actual physical damage to the target when it detonates. Detonation, again, is by proximity, not by physical contact.
With that in mind, how realistic was the missile's detonation sequence here? I'm not talking about its trajectory or never-ending fuel supply or anything like that..... just specifically the impact. How realistic was it?
As a VAQ-140 maintainer...this is why we fly EA-18 Growlers...all SAM sites would've been, identified, jammed and destroyed before it even knew there was a jet in the sky.
@@janburda6749 cyberwarfare is still in development for optical/electro optical terminal guidance jamming. IR can be blinded, avoided and detected. These systems can't be jammed theoretically but threats from these sources can be minimized. As of now, optical missile systems aren't as common as heat seeking or radar detecting
@@carson3201 Well, I am still quite curious as to how a EW/SEAD would help the F-18 in the clip from being ambushed by a Strela-10 hidden in a forest.
@@janburda6749 just speaking generically, radar guided systems which are most common now would've been deemed useless. A set of flares would be enough to distract a IR sam from a strella.
Damn I love the scene where the fuselage splits and the occupants engage the ejection seat.. then the explosive bolts fire.. canopy separates, etc etc. A top notch example of something you will never ever see in real life unless you are the pilot that needs a new plane.
When I first watched this scene, I could overlook the missiles seeming to have an endless fuel supply, but the second missile continuing to function after striking the plane was completely unbelievable. It simply would've been too badly damaged to operate. This kind of ruined it for me. The rest of the movie was good, however.
Mr Brown The latest fighter jets don’t get detected by sams, they don’t need to fly that low for recon. SAMs are mach 8 now but don’t get a single hit these days.
I know, right? It's because it's super smart. No, missiles are infinitely faster than planes, so when they miss they overshoot and then that's it. They run out of fuel and fall from the sky.
Everybody talking about the fuel while me here watching that missile just following and not hitting the target till the end of the scene finally, AND IT WASNT EVEN THE MISSLE😂😂😂
Every movie is meant for a "gullible" audience then. There's no sound in space. F U STARWARS!!! DNA has a relative short lifespan. F U JURASSIC PARK!!! People in the middle ages had horrible teeth and knights were rapists. F U ALMOST EVERY KNIGHT MOVIE EVER!!! *sigh*
Can you explain to me what was happening here? The missile shot out projectiles, and did not strike the aircraft. Is this accurate? Proximity fuse? Please give me a SAM lesson, I can't find it online.
IAMGOD712007 Direct hits on fast maneuvering targets are very hard to achieve, so most air to air missiles and surface to air missiles (though not all) are equipped with some form of a proximity fuse. When the missile gets into its range, the proximity fuse detonates the missile and the shrapnel and blast from the missile are what achieve the kill. Now there are some SAMs and air to air missiles that require a direct kill, but this is considered by and large a less effective and less reliable method.
As a fighter pilot i can say this scene is pure fictional. Missiles typically do not “chase down” fighter jets as misrepresented in movies. An effective missile shot will have the missile reaching the aircraft with a much greater speed (like twice as fast). Once the motor burns out, the missile then glides to its target
Everyone with special knowledge will find movies silly when it crosses their expertise. I'm a chemist and the silliness that goes on in CSI😫 I don't doubt that nuclear plan workers cringe when watching The Simpsons.
I know there are a LOT of errors and totally ridiculous things about this scene, BUUUUUUUUUUT, it does give the sense of the terror that a missile coming at you might cause to pilots.... plus, it's epic and super entertaining. You can't deny that!
Bravo, and thank you for pointing this out my good sir because I was thoroughly confused by this somewhat radical inspection, or critique if you must. I thought we were watching a scene from a "movie"; Yet, you would have thought these guys just discovered General James Holmes himself attemted to play this video for thousands of unsuspecting fighter pilots before their BFM! Lol... All I can say is, thank the Lord this wasn't a clip from the movie Tropic Thunder. 🤣
Gary powers history 2.0 . In the case of the film you are dead in very high probability if misile impacts plane. 5 seconds and transition to black and end of the film... ... ...
I asked a Vietnam fighter pilot about this. Quote, "You cannot out run a SAM, but you can out maneuver it. So you out maneuver it until it runs out of fuel and falls back into the jungle." In this video they now have SAM's that never ran out of fuel??
It depends on the maneuvers used to evade it, if you look at the comm trails behind the SAM it flanks around trying to intercept it, also it does depend on the missile, that model I believe is Russian so it uses over-powering speed to catch it's target, that I could be wrong on though.
SAM missiles chase your butt around, just like these are doing. They usually don't fly long enough to be able to catch the maneuvering plane. They run out of fuel...
umaxen01 So I guess it's easier for them to intercept the aircraft than following its butt around... less maneuvering, less fuel waste. If it's following the aircraft from behind, i think it would waste more fuel - more maneuvers to hit the target
***** Maybe, but if it's using over-powering speed, I guess that intercepting the aircraft is the easiest way to hit the target... but i don't know. I'm not an expert :)
Exactly, there is currently no known missile technology that can endure that long, and that high a G Force. In theory, a drone type craft "could" do this kind of maneuvering and endurance but only at subsonic, supersonic would make the drone waste fuel faster than a dunk flushing a bottle of gin. So dramatic trick, but far from real.
Missile takes 3 seconds to close within 20 foot of the plane, that had a 30 second head start. Then proceeds to take 2 minutes to cover the remaining 20 feet.
The Hornet is my favorite jet. Maybe not as fast as the Eagle but it's gonna sneak up on them MiGs real quiet like and gun them with a big gun. My neighbor is an old F-4 Phantom pilot. He saw a little action in Vietnam. I keep telling him to write a book. He had his share of close calls and narrow escapes from MiGs. These are my 3 favorite aviation books: - The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman - Scream of Eagles by Robert Wilcox - Great Fighter Jets of the Galaxy 1 by Tim Gibson
The missile closes the gap between the launcher and a receding target to a 100 meters in 14 seconds. After that it chases the same target for more than a minute.
That SAM must be pretty advanced, ignoring the IR flares and chaff countermeasures completely. Still, didn't expect the missile to open up and shoot out a group of flechettes like a shotgun, slowing the plane down enough for a fireball to catch up
Круто. Оказывается, ракеты у 9К35 работают на антиматерии с медленной аннигиляцией, а система управления использует как минимум суперкомпьютер и несколько датчиков для различных длин электромагнитной волны. Иначе я не могу объяснить, как твердотопливная ракета может так долго летать за самолётом, причём с трудом удерживаясь по скорости у него в хвосте, но не отвлекаясь ни на какие противозенитные манёвры, ложные цели и препятствия. Повторюсь, это круто.
This is ridiculous. Even playing a bit of flight sims tells you that: a. No missile flies like that. Once they've passed you, you're clear. b. I don't think that Master Caution goes on at a launch warning in the F-18. c. They're dropping just flares when they clearly state 'chaff', and dropping flares doesn't make any sense against a radar thread. However, I don't know how the F-18 CMS is configured. d. The typical American RWS/MWS doesn't sound like in the movie. They missed an opportunity here, too - It sounds way cooler. e. Once the F-18 is behind a mountain, the SAM breaks lock immediately and the missiles go ballistic. f. Why do they even enter the threat area with outer fuel tanks? Fuel tanks are typically dropped at fence-in (WAAAY before you're near your target), and all bomb stations should be immediately cleared if you have to be defensive (That's literally one switch, that gets thrown if you get the 'locked on' on your RWS).
You are right. However in reality a fighter jet against three SAM missiles will have a hard time no matter how advanced it is. Hollywood rarely depicts reality.
Three missiles at once isn't a problem. Most of the time, you defeat all at once with the same maneuver (if they're the same type). Three missile in short order is more difficult. It burns through countermeasures and bleeds energy because you have to counteract every one after the other. This leads to you without chaffs and flares with minimal air speed and low to the ground - then you're a sitting duck.
